2011 Malaysian GP second practice analysis

Red Bull seem to be able to look after their tyres better than their rivals in Malaysia.

However it was clear from the radio chatter during the session that Mark Webber was unhappy with rear tyre degradation. He wasn’t able to preserve his tyres as long as Vettel in Melbourne and may have the same problem here.

It remains to be seen whether both RB7s were using KERS all the time. The energy recovery device can cause increased rear tyre wear.

The team will decide tonight whether to run it in the rest of the weekend.

Longest stint comparison

The Red Bull appears to have the best performance over a stint. Compare Sebastian Vettel’s run with Jenson Button’s below to see.

Lewis Hamilton said the tyres aren’t lasting as long as they did in Melbourne and he expects a three-stop race.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/charts/2011drivercolours.csv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Sebastian Vettel

104.041

104.042

104.046

104.379

104.268

104.216

104.661

104.431

104.438

105.489

103.993

105.206

Mark Webber

105.664

104.138

103.585

103.753

103.666

103.545

104.455

104.881

105.661

Lewis Hamilton

104.539

104.175

104.223

104.477

105.583

106.03

Jenson Button

106.384

105.451

104.58

104.503

104.074

104.49

104.68

104.588

104.758

105.975

106.938

108.748

Fernando Alonso

105.605

106.684

105.91

106.38

107.834

112.009

Felipe Massa

103.538

103.754

113.541

103.584

104.307

104.83

105.519

113.944

107.014

Michael Schumacher

106.076

107.463

109.146

111.762

Nico Rosberg

104.974

105.14

105.992

106.997

110.369

Nick Heidfeld

104.062

104.704

117.833

104.958

106.249

107.037

107.641

112.492

Vitaly Petrov

106.642

106.216

107.174

138.412

Rubens Barrichello

106.771

106.246

106.403

106.058

106.11

106.553

112.372

106.792

107.964

Pastor Maldonado

107.061

107.033

106.027

106.358

106.7

110.17

108.422

Adrian Sutil

104.614

104.653

107.645

104.763

106.384

105.804

106.575

Paul di Resta

103.828

104.058

104.906

106.128

109.326

107.994

111.335

112.676

Kamui Kobayashi

105.884

104.078

104.825

104.62

105.252

Sergio Perez

105.229

104.622

104.585

104.853

104.922

105.306

105.372

105.679

106.664

107.307

111.478

108.378

109.505

Sebastien Buemi

104.3

105.4

102.761

103.091

102.733

102.607

Jaime Alguersuari

104.848

106.168

106.136

106.479

107.015

108.737

110.449

Heikki Kovalainen

105.118

104.886

Jarno Trulli

108.918

108.767

124.529

Narain Karthikeyan

106.75

108.425

106.189

105.6

Vitantonio Liuzzi

107.453

110.776

106.123

106.153

Timo Glock

105.737

105.374

105.144

106.341

106.8

106.297

106.21

107.81

Jerome d’Ambrosio

Ultimate lap times

Ferrari are a little closer to the pace than they appear to be – Fernando Alonso was delayed by Jarno Trulli during his quickest lap.

Trulli also felt his fastest lap was spoiled by traffic and believes he can improve.

Car

Driver

Car

Ultimate lap

Gap

Deficit to best

1

2

Mark Webber

Red Bull-Renault

1’36.876

0.000

2

4

Jenson Button

McLaren-Mercedes

1’36.881

0.005

0.000

3

3

Lewis Hamilton

McLaren-Mercedes

1’37.010

0.134

0.000

4

1

Sebastian Vettel

Red Bull-Renault

1’37.090

0.214

0.000

5

6

Felipe Massa

Ferrari

1’38.047

1.171

0.042

6

7

Michael Schumacher

Mercedes

1’38.088

1.212

0.000

7

5

Fernando Alonso

Ferrari

1’38.187

1.311

0.396

8

8

Nico Rosberg

Mercedes

1’38.434

1.558

0.131

9

9

Nick Heidfeld

Renault

1’38.537

1.661

0.033

10

19

Jaime Alguersuari

Toro Rosso-Ferrari

1’38.846

1.970

0.000

11

12

Pastor Maldonado

Williams-Cosworth

1’38.968

2.092

0.000

12

10

Vitaly Petrov

Renault

1’39.159

2.283

0.108

13

11

Rubens Barrichello

Williams-Cosworth

1’39.187

2.311

0.000

14

16

Kamui Kobayashi

Sauber-Ferrari

1’39.248

2.372

0.150

15

15

Paul di Resta

Force India-Mercedes

1’39.509

2.633

0.116

16

17

Sergio Perez

Sauber-Ferrari

1’39.603

2.727

0.000

17

14

Adrian Sutil

Force India-Mercedes

1’39.754

2.878

0.055

18

18

Sebastien Buemi

Toro Rosso-Ferrari

1’39.853

2.977

0.262

19

24

Timo Glock

Virgin-Cosworth

1’40.866

3.990

0.000

20

21

Jarno Trulli

Lotus-Renault

1’41.849

4.973

0.041

21

22

Narain Karthikeyan

HRT-Cosworth

1’43.127

6.251

0.070

22

23

Vitantonio Liuzzi

HRT-Cosworth

1’43.991

7.115

0.000

23

20

Heikki Kovalainen

Lotus-Renault

1’44.869

7.993

0.017

Complete practice times

Encouragingly for Renault, despite missing much of the session while their cars were repaired, Nick Heidfeld managed the ninth fastest time and did it on the fourth lap of his stint.

HRT showed they have the potential to beat the 107% time in qualifying. Narain Karthikeyan was half-a-second quicker than the 107% time based on the quickest time in second practice.

Unusually, the two Mercedes had among the lowest top speeds at the speed trap. Nick Heidfeld was quickest at 307.9kph – the fastest Mercedes of Nico Rosberg was over 11kph slower and Michael Schumacher was another 5kph behind.

71 comments on Red Bull show superior performance in race stints

I think, Button said something about the softs really “dropping off a cliff” when the go. So that stint of his might have been on the softs.

Maybe Vettel gave them more time to get up to speed, so he could perserve them. Pirelli says this really helps preserving the tyres for a longer time. Button certainly used them aggressively in that fastest lap of his.

Seems its more about Vettel having looked at conserving the tyres for a longer run, while both Webber and Button went for a bit of Qualli style aggression on the tyres and showed that does the tyres in, instead of just McLaren being harder on the tyre.

In the last race it initially appeared that Redbull were harder on their tyres. Whether that was infact the extra fuel they were apparently carrying we may well find out over the next few races. Possibly Hamiton initially being on Vettels pace was the fuel effect more than anything else.

It did appear that McLaren were managing their tyres very well in Aus practice, but the balance on the Redbull, despite Horner’s total bull about rake hights, appears to be as close to perfect as is posible so fuel effect should be the only reason it’s harder on it’s tyres.

Exactly how unpredictable are these guys going to make this season?
-> Now suddenly, RBR manages tyres better than McLaren.
-> RBR is suddenly quicker than McLaren in sector 3, which is the one with the straights.
-> McLaren is quicker in the sectors 1-2, which has the cornering goin on…

Oh well, for the better. We want excitement, they are surely doing their best to bring it to us this way!

They surely are, I love how suddenly McLaren and Redbull are swapping fastest sectors. I think the Woking boys are going to be extra inspired this year and really fight the good fight, in a way they haven’t since 98-2000.

It does, tech glitches again. In a way, I think the second year is actually the hardest.
First year everything is new, you can see some hopefull signs etc. But the second you have to deliver and still are a team learning the ropes.
Then the 3rd year will be the deciding factor to see weather the team actually has what it needs to be successfull long term.

Great analysis thanks. Not 100% but I remember thinking at the time that all the fronts runners appeared to be on softs for their final runs. They all want to know just how far they can push them and not get caught out a la perez in melbourne.

Webber, Button and Hamilton certainly did a quick lap on a short stint with those tyres before their long run. That would make sense and would be what would happen to the tyres in qualification and then the race. It makes sense to simulate that.

I have no idea what other people did, but I assume they did something similar.

I have just watched the onboard qualifying lap with Vettel from Melbourne 2011. And I am seriously wondering what the heck did Adrian Newey do to that front wing or the whole nose of the car! Under air flow it behaves like thick cardboard:)

And I am seriously wondering what the heck did Adrian Newey do to that front wing or the whole nose of the car!

The whole car is based on a different philosophy to its rivals. It’s not something that you could copy without having to make a whole new car. This is why they keep getting stick about something that is perfectly legal.

Wrong, I believe the regulations prohibit the wing running below a certain ride height at any time. The Red Bull clearly does this by visibly flexing. The FIA have yet to get their act together and figure out a way of catching them out.

The regulations do not specify that the wing should run below a certain height when the car is on the track. The wing passes the current test designed to catch them out. Not that the FIA is there only to “catch them out”.

Article 3.15 says that no bodywork should move. If that were the case then ‘no’ car would be within the regulations. Therefore article 3.17 allows a freedom of movement for certain areas of bodywork. Rule 3.17.1 says that the front wing can move 20mm when a 1000N weight is placed upon it. The Red Bull wing passes this test.

It’s nitpicking but you know the rules prohibit bodywork below the reference plane. It’s not just about whether a piece of bodywork passes a stress test. The reference plane rule is specifically there to prevent ground-effect devices, like, say running a front wing on right on the deck like a front-diffuser.

Horner’s histrionics about rake are not satisfying. No amount of rake explains the obvious bowing the endplates toward the track. Only RBR’s front wings curve downward like that.

Once again the same issue. Passing a test is not the same as not infringing a regulation. Sure RBR’s flexi-parts are legal until ruled otherwise (because of different tests). FIA seem curiously reluctant to respond to the visual evidence everyone else can plainly see, so you can hardly blame McLaren for nagging away. Still Red Bull (Newey) have to be admired for the design and the way they’ve got round the rules, other teams do and try to the same, they’ve just been hugely successful in this case.

I don’t believe that for a second. Adrian Newey isn’t a computer programmer. It makes me smile how Newey is given credit for absolutely everything like he’s a one man band. I wonder if he makes the coffee and drives the lorry’s too? If i was part of the Red Bull design and engineering team I’d be well p#][#d!!

I hope they all race too Adrian. I absolutely hate the 107% rule. It’s a completely random number and it doesn’t do anything at all for safety because the busiest and msot chaotic moments on track are during practice and especially qualifying whereas in the race it’s much easier due to the cars being slower and blue flags. It takes drivers over a season to get up to speed because of the ban on testing so how new teams are meant to show up and be bang on the pace is beyond me.

The best thing about it is that for the race there’s effectively a 111% rule – i.e. if you don’t finish 90% of the leader’s laps before the race is over you’re not classified.

So inherent in the rules is the notion that you can be fast enough to race but not to qualify! Given that the difference in qualifying pace is nearly always smaller in the race it seems especially ridiculous.

Sure, it may be second hand information from a friend who’s connected to Alan Webber, but Red Bull don’t want to make public the knowledge that Webber’s rear suspension was problematic. Supposedly there was an apology to him too.

It could (likely) all be ridiculous hearsay. But then again, it could explain the stupidly big gap between the two Red Bull drivers. They haven’t bothered to offer an explanation…

The correct way to test the wing flex is to simulate race conditions rather than a static test with weights on the end. Clever designers can alter the way the wing flexes using simulation software. You can apply a point load say in the same direction as the FIA would test and ensure the coomposite material doesn’t flex to much but then you can run a simulation that forces air over it and generates a force from braking etc to change the dynamic shape of the wing which can then give you a threshold to work to. Im surprised the FIA haven’t got there act together and use some sort of electronic guage on the underside of the wing end fences and make them do a lap of the circuit giving a true reading of the deflection.

How can you then take into account suspension movement, tyre pressure and actual down force created by the wing. In order to pass your test I would fit a wing with minimum downforce, increase ride height and max tyre pressures.

The correct way is to look at visual evidence and when visual evidence demonstrates that something is overly flexing, a test should be devised to ban this. Just like they did EVERY time when another team had some visible flex in their wings.

Red Bull also did heavy runs at the beginning of the session with hard tyres. Are these definately the runs done later with the softs? if Vettels is the longer run on hard tyres than it makes comparison pointless

Sorry, to clarify i don’t mean measure the distance from the tarmac to underside of the wing as you rightly say this doesnt acount for tire pressure ride height etc. I mean to correctly measure it you need to say have a laser mounted say on the nose shine a dot on the wing end fence and then have a camera to measure the movement of the dot along a line with measured increments say in millimeters. This way you will get the true deflection Value. I suspect its not a linear movement thought more of a twist.

This way you will get the true deflection Value. I suspect its not a linear movement thought more of a twist.

In order to run this test you would need a perfectly flat track with no variation in wind direction. It may also be that Red Bull would also run the car in a configuration that does not flex the wing. The test would also only be of value if it were carried out whilst the car was in parc ferme conditions, which clearly isn’t going to happen.

It would have to be a retro fit clamp on device that was packaged small to negate any impact of the device itself on the testing and should be done like a random drugs test over a race weekend to any car suspected of having a flexible wing. i dont see why having a flat track or wind varoation is important as the fixed datum is on the car itself and the measurement is only designed to measure flex in the wing. My understanding is that cars are not meant to have flexible wings regardless however all materials deform so they have given a tollerance for the manufacturers to adhere too. What people think is that redbull have cleverly managed to create a wing that deforms very little under a point load however deforms greatly under a set of circumstances replicated on the race track.
In my opinion this is not a problem and is legal and other manufactures need to play catchup. However i was pointing out an alternative method for the FIA to acurately measure wing deflection without bias.

Last year the whole nose of the car went down because they flexed their floor. That’s now effectively eliminated by the new tests. The front wing still flexes since the tests on that were pretty much unchanged. Double the force for double the deflection with the testing forces being only a fraction of the actual force on the wing at speed.